Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081998 - C68 ev + '. Contra ' Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS liihR►< Count� FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD •, `` DIRECTOR OF COMITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: December 8, 1998 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITHIN A PORTION OF A SCENIC EASEMENT, #2148 LAS TRAMPAS ROAD, ALAMO AREA (Parcel #198-220-040, Parcel SB of MS 3-89; Beran; Buckeye Hill) SPECIFIC REQUESTS} OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION T R F[''f)MMEMAT ID11% 1 . Accept environmental determination (Categorically Exempt) as adequate. 2 . Authorize the driveway improvements within the . scenic easement . EISQAL IMPAC None. BACKQRQMM/FASONS EQR C=ENDA 1QNS The applicant is proposing to construct a residence on a vacant property near the southwest terminus of Las Trampas Read within the .Alamo Ridge subdivision project . The project is proposing to construct a driveway through a portion of an existing scenic easement (area where a grant deed of development rights has been conveyed to the County) . PriQr �Subdivision AgyrQyAl The site was created by the approval of a minor subdivision application. Because the subdivision lies along Las Trampas Ridge, a designated scenic ridge in the General Plan, the subdivision was approved but subject to the granting of a scenic easement outside of designated building sites across the bulk of the site to restrict the placement of structures, improvements and other development. Attached is a copy of the parcel map, and scenic easement instrument that pertains to this site. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE , RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C07! EE _2L APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES} : ACTION OF 'BOARD ON Nowhgr 8 1918 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED MC OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A rn D'b1TD4()TT-Q TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: TT,iy,31,7 NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: TT.T ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.' Contact: Bob Drake ( (925) 335-1214) Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED December 8, 1998 CC: Eric & Linda Beran, c/o CDD PHIL BATCHELOR., CLERK OF GMMA, Mark Armstrong THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CDD File #ZI987922 AND C LINTY ADMINISTRATOR B DEPUTY c:\wpdoc\beran2 .bo RD\ LAW OFFICES 00'f4 i,r"}y �(,7 f GAGEN', MCCOY, MCMA.HON & ARk§tRONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN., JR. A PROPE5510NALC ATION DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. M.CCOY ""V 5W✓ yt1�� 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMAHON � 817 I�i P. O. @O% 216 MARK L. ARMSTRONG �'h4ll 12 DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 LINN K. COOMBS ;•,I (1414 TELEPHONE: (025) 837-0585 STEPHEN W. THOMAS CHARLES A. .P FAX: (925) /936-5 SA85 KOS5 f',� {'.^r MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ Y( Lam•.� NAPA VALLEY OFFICE MICHAEL W. CARTER RICHARD C. RA1NE5 October 20, E 1998 THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDG VICTOR J. CONT1 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE :212 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574 ROBERT M. FANUCCI TELEPHONE: (707) 9453-0909 ALLAN C. MOOR€ FAX: (707) 963-5527 PATRICIA E. CURTIN STEPHEN T. BUENL PLEASE REPLY TO: ALEXANDER L. SCHMID AMANDAJUDG€ AL1 P. HAM401 Danville Dennis M. Barry, Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 851 Pine St., 4th Mr., North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Eric and Linda Beran Lot 6B in Parcel Map MS 3-89 Request for Approval of Portion of Driveway within Scenic Easement Dear Dennis: Our office represents Eric and Linda Beran. They own Parcel B located at the end of Las Trampas Road in Alamo Ridge, Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 3-89, recorded in 1990. Parcel B was formerly a part of Lot 6 and Lot 7 in Subdivision 6419 Alamo Ridge recorded in 1988. Lot 6 and Lot 7 were split into four parcels in MS 3-89 in 1990. Copies of both subdivision maps are enclosed. A Grant ofDevelopment Rights was recorded July 28, 1988, in order to meet the requirements of Condition No. 6 of Subdivision 6419. A Grant Deed of Development Rights was recorded on August 9, 1991, in order to meet the requirements of Condition No. 2 of Subdivision MS 3-89. Both grant deeds provide for the granting of development rights within the areas marked "restricted development areae1 on the respective maps. Our understanding is that the term "restricted development areas" also refers to depicted "scenic easements." A copy of the each Grant Deed of Development Rights is enclosed. Subdivision 6419 depicts the driveway easement to Lots 6 and 7, whichis located outside the scenic easement and restricted development areas of that map. 'Thereafter, as part of Subdivision MS 3-89, separate driveways were provided for the four new parcels that were previously Lots 6 and 7. A trail easement for the East Bay Regional(Park District was relocated to where the previous common.driveway easement for Lots 6 and 7 was located under Subdivision 6419. Inadvertently, there was a failure to identify a driveway for Parcel B on the Parcel Map for MS 3-89. In fact, by the time Parcel Map for MS 3-89 was approved a driveway had already been cut on Parcel B in order to accommodate a water Dennis M. Barry October 20, 1998 Page 2 tank on the development site. If that mistake had been corrected at the time the Parcel Map MS 3-89 was approved and recorded, the driveway for Parcel B would have been depicted in the location of the existing, graded access driveway to the development site. The Berans intend to use that existing driveway to the only identified building site on the lot(that site was previously graded for the water tank that is no longer needed). The Berans have already received approval of a perimeter fence to their lot. The height of their proposed residential structures and any related design review, as well as the grading and building permits for those improvements,have already been approved. The grading and building permits will be issued once the driveway location has been finalized working through the Community Development Department. A tree permit has been approved to allow for paving the driveway within the drip line of protected oak trees. That paving will not adversely affect those trees, because the access has already been cut. A copy of the Approved Permit with Findings and Conditions is enclosed. The Berans'are not proposing the removal of any trees. If the driveway were to be relocated elsewhere on Parcel B and/or outside the depicted scenic easements, then significant grading and tree removal would be required to provide building site access. I believe staff is in agreement that the only feasible driveway access to the building site on Parcel B is in the location of the existing, graded access. I believe staff is in agreement that the existing, graded access is the best location for a driveway to the building site and will result in the least aesthetic and environmental disturbance. If the driveway has to be relocated,several intended oak trees would need to be removed. Obviously,the Berans have the right to have access to their building site. Attached is a site plan depicting the location of the Berans'proposed home and driveway. The cross-hatched portion of the driveway as depicted is within the designated scenic easement on Parcel Map MS 3-89 and Subdivision 6419. Please consider this letter a formal request on behalf of the Berans for approval by Contra Costa County of finish grading, paving and utilities within that portion of the scenic easement as depicted. In my opinion, approval of such improvements represents the correction of an inadvertent error in Parcel Map MS 3-89 and the failure to identify the driveway at that time. The existing, graded access is obviously the most appropriate location for a driveway to the only designated building site on Parcel B of MS 3-89. Please include the approval of these improvements within the scenic easement as depicted on a consent calendar of the Board of Supervisors at the earliest convenient time. As set forth in each Grant Deed of Development Rights applicable to this parcel,'a decision on this request must be made by Contra Costa County within 60 days from receipt of this letter. Dennis M. Barry October 20, 1998 Page 3 Otherwise, failure to respond is considered equivalent to the approval of the proposal. If you need any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, Mark L. Armstrong MLA:ng Enclosures cc: Eric and Linda Beran (w/encls.) John Seals, Architect(w/encls.) FACLMLAL303751bany i{116-itr r k S i \ti P-1 f t t t I�Y tj fl�{ .t y R i iKt � f \ R t - Z, 000 4��R w9j Rl l; t✓ f; 1 (1 S i � y4t\ t _ t r V MAY 6 1991 �-- S `u.—<-_.� - `_.._:...r�e�rs�s•+s•"'*cT-t'T'^.�__...., -1M fA14 ...._._ ..�.__ ,,,,_,_.,.. iu---M3;ttr rt rter �:dd ..,....... �.� taa s sl» say 7nninn Man R -14 ..................................................................................I... ..........-............................................................. .................................................................. .................. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: John H. Seals APPLICATION NO. TP980013 5767 Broadway Oakland,CA 94618 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 198-220-040 OWNER: Linda&Eric Beran ZONING DISTRICT: A-2 PO Box 14357 Fremont,CA 94539 APPROVED DATE: June 26, 1998 EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1998 This period not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law,a permit for: A Tree Permit to make underground utility and driveway improvements for a proposed residence is hereby GRANTED,subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY,AICP Director Community Develop t Department By: 1�Obert CH. Drake,Senior Planner Unless otherwise provided,THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE six months from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. .............-..............11.......... .................... .............................. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT NO. TP980013 (John E. Sear, Applicant, Linda & Eric Beran - Owners) Criteria f9r Review f th- ..Tree Periit A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked. 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor,health and cannot be saved. 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. 3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some ether means. 4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation, walls, patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc. 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard. 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving. X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. 8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived, weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling. X 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, and the Director is satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource. 10. done of the above factors apply. B. Rewired Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying(or modifying) a tree hermit application have been satisfied as marked: The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). 2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability, windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. 1 The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. 4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual effect, wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. 5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives including an alternate route, use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director. X 7. None of the above factors apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1, _< ml-°The application for Tree Alterations is approved based on the following documents: • Tree survey map; Report on the Project by Brian Fenske of the Professional Tree Care Company, a licensed arborist, dated May 4, 1998. Except as otherwise specified,development shall be in accord with the recommendations of the arborist report. All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees to be altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. This permit shall be valid for a period of six months and may be renewed for additional periods by the Director of Community Development upon request by the applicant. Approval Contingent on Board of Supervisors Authorization to Permit Driveway Improvements within the Scenic Easement 2. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall apply to the Community Development Department (written letter) and request'permission to make proposed driveway improvements within the scenic easement area, and obtain authorization for said improvements from the Board of Supervisors. Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged 3. Trees to be Preserved but tered - Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are followed. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: -3- A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 100 trees, minimum I5-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; B. Determination of Secuc�y Amount-The security shall provide for all of the following costs based on an estimate prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect or landscape contractor: • preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; a labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees that may be required; and +► an additional 20%of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptanpe of a Security- The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security -The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security(Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following;the completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. At least 18 months following the completion of work within the dripline of trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and, if appropriate, any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. Construction Period Restrictions 4. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction,paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the -4- trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. 5. Construction Pedod Bgq_ri ions-No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arbozst shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. 6. Prohihiti no. fPx -Ido parking or storing vehicles,equipment, machinery or construction materials,construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 7. Con tr-wtion Tree Damage-The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 8. S=rvision of Work by an Arbmrist - All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed arborist. Arborist Expense 9. Arbgrist Expense-The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. Payment of Any Required Supplemental Fees 10. Payment of Any Due Supplemental Application Fees - This application is subject to an initial application fee of$125 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120%of the initial.fee. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, commencement of tree alteration work, -5- ................................................................................................... ........................... or 60 days of the effective date of this permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant or owner may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant/owner shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. C:\wpdoc\tp98iOO 13.coa RD\ -6- ........................................................I........ Current Propozal The current applicants, Eric and Linda Beran, are proposing to establish a residence at the subject site. Attached are a set of plans showing the proposed improvements in relationship to the scenic easement . The house plans have been reviewed by staff and determined to comply with the design standards contained in the subdivision approval . The driveway is proposed to be aligned along an existing driveway (presumed fire trail) in the only location that would avoid removal of any trees. However, that alignment lies within alportion of the scenic easement . To allow a driveway in that location requires authorization from the County. No portion of the residence or grading is otherwise proposed to be placed within the scenic easement area. :[Kee Pe=it Prey The development does not involve the removal of any existing trees . However, because the applicants are proposing to route the driveway and underground utility routes through the root zone of existing trees which are code-protected under the Tree Ordinance, they filed for and obtained a tree permit from the County (attached, File #TP980013) . Prior to finalization of the tree permit, owners of adjoining properties and other potentially interested parties were provided an opportunity to appeal the action to the Planning Commission; however no appeal was timely received. DiscuasiQ� The proposed driveway alignment is logical both from the standpoint of the applicant and the County. Any other alignment would likely result in the removal of numerous existing oak trees which lie between the house site and Las Trampas Road, which would have a more deleterious visual impact that what is proposed. CEQ Cons .d rte?ons The project is categorically exempt from the review requirements of the California. Environmental Quality Act. Class 4 (Section 15304 of the State CEQA Guidelines) allows for private alterations in the condition of land, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of mature, scenic trees. The proposed driveway improvement would not involve any grading but would allow for hardscape improvements within the scenic easement area. No trees are proposed to be removed. Time Limitation for cting_Qn ReQuest If the Board has reservations about approving the proposed driveway improvement authorization, the Board should be aware that the scenic easement instrument provides the County with a limited period of time to act on the matter (maximum 60 days from the time of submittal) . If no action is taken by the Board within that period of time, then the application is automatically approved under the terms of the scenic easement. This request was filed with the County on October 21, 1998 . Therefore, the Board has until December 21, 1998 (effectively December 15, 1998) to act on the request . If no decision is made within that timeframe then the request is automatically approved. BK• POR S SB9"35'37"w 4 O G! �A I .rc4,vrc _ - POR / / Ld-Lr2./Ar. 4,S�6 f� .rr up / �.1 sce Ac.) StExrG 449f. C- A Act . xcEA�rc ¢:• j � x eA$4 f QLD.. `�. �,�✓i4.a6 (4.53 AC) ZASf. ._- .► B4 DG. Erre_ t D, VC — POR I 6 67 Ac. s eA S ' a f x=�'sytff•�sy!� I ELvv bill, w 14 23.94 Ar,. rls � pr94 17147: 44• r"{, 1 �. `*` ♦ , + 13#:4� #*,r�----��,,,.... x.�v �''' 2 .,, '``�•--.... .,,., .,,�. � t Soo EASE " 1 eA$46: 9 0. .✓ �f��. 1=4,14t (4•.87 Aa• rrb$ tfe' t} xrtr"�'ta c ..✓ 1-� wq ♦ !G.4xJ Ac A• is \\\ 1 �+`� C' �d � '�` �5b .i8.t3 t r.,.�"^��.t✓Sl6Nrc � 5 a.a• �'sa t3'S3'?. � 90 is J SASE. C +i u Sias• "o!dT g j� y 9 o 4��1i:lCxl�Stat ♦ gg#� isA �1�l� 59.53 �rZ GgA r✓d8°Gb". �l0.yA sS 6 c aro• f ✓ 379 0 St 9 220 6 -'' } `t t�3` '` 7$ r�` (D "" r st ..�'�° / �'KCd- 4 55t ex se, `� `\'t jjr' C4.14A,-.} g{ c+r 43 aG p° SlASE. �y'P '6411. rf'a/{li( x 67&A . `% aa% % �v POR 15 7 y f -�-- ,, r�,� XXLG (ft.37 Aa7 d S ScErYlc 'Nv f w ars: p;w rcemic 33 n EA SM. E nf er m'� , ,� sceetrc t5.43Ac.} ti: 158 32 3914 W C.63Ac) "'/ � �(o w:. �r �.. 1� 7•i6As. �tM ���,,•^••�,Q s i11�:b�o• ENY- � v p 1. �„. ir,��sG„•r," «{W 3�.'K(Ia $tar - vcJ Rx , ,-.a � ,,,. 'y�•"4b 2<�y° w+v ""`r.nrrs •rao' .�G�cS�L 8.34 '®!�'r. R<QG s _�•` t�,t3 '.•." "+.. ;y t� •a �, •�, /�f.Y. �f 9x3 -,. `�' �`.,... ��...,.,� g• BtO:s.�.. SCE S' \`„✓' C. i0.'G 'fir . 43 77TRA .Sr .ti•s+ O« ENY, t.4SAG} N8G 4'7'gd"w EUY. E gLS.+FS!7"jti �2. r V -- W Scst1lc41 has �ti M• ,a Z3 ', � �tq ``'� ,�. cCa.40Ac..) %LOG.ENV. 1 6A5E.-�y h: O ��Errs. �'1.tc� A.'. Cr(1.3')A4) ': i * Coarat� 13 vsrL 7»rgtarstosiit! ,_ 9•�3 8.046 AG. �r5 -`r`: � -- �g4"67'rr•7��`' ,E•5 ga.xi �: J FEB 2 2 1993 C t q � iyw..•.�"4� b C) `�`� tYSI$3�Li8""i6aAt�b's$888$$ARSRR•ASii'�FJRr"e'^.$7RS3t3i�SRnca` `�.°;.a m y[ j�ffi"ic�«^.l RiAi::rr.'$JSi$t.�.$i"S�l4Ai SS'8A•$"�lB�"`�e''�R�"da';;St 9in."1��.^�•�+'��32 m`� 1+r'g�1. � WwWW�� iiY�Yi�yrl rl.W Wi i Wi YYii�ryW�WrYii[ WW���.�q•�Wq'}•.�`*��rn : V! ff FF itpp?. Ptrr*wra.O�r xr aa3n yr�Wi bZ Qtl4.rgwq�Bert Y)6w�rD v� ril wy4lihyO D'Cvi�O � Y O�ef.g+�.yY�yNTl�g.yl yw�.+�w.�'JylYT�:p+yNNyV.Ygl q,pFig�g-.Bi yO�."s pR rOyq�r@ �'.{ g�9{Ry.�Rgi gRly sMS AA MNp$¢¢ $ J O bi in`i'k fb 3'SBfA id AfY #aLT A3aA' N'Yia Ch I; tic i��>r �" y�, is 9J C �" ��i co ' m 'EAST EJA7 fj e0 iea' +�r1Fii4 n1K.''tRJC7 3S +s )-s CL cn VBG.83• t . ,� +olOi/f1NJ/YJ5Y3tt/Ll9r �� �Y+ k. ,e wtl1Naw3sr3 vrvzas, 3 pRN°►t� J \ e $veer far 4W $. �+...-.-''' ....•-;C''4-..,.`" cw, rm�§�+v CL ., ti a Tr air` .z`a ac ces -1 r���, M. § :" ` .&' 4t iY-0�l.Yn Olf7S.J 'In"I °,j$�. bF I1'Ft8 'j V h. aY u 1� r 1{A try,* 6F IYFti 1 t31 INYA'31d"Aa'dY ✓'�� v�i .1'V3�3J8" �"`•'`„r... m gQ3"�, �O y, Y31Y3.trM3 cp ,tel ,t•� r+ '• ,r Lr31g5r .air,� •.f 1 V o ...ees_'st„•+oJ.Y �ss.za if. LL. O.a i .4i'i6E ,r �'��,�++ •4DT 111 NlI.17'yY .+1PY7 YJ'18dNe,7. Nt tic' •_.�.e•t JV •J'{_ti 'ff• O V fA '+► f, tr xv .. 027 ' a'i W�� h h � r a�,,,�,s••qi�" tit �i••'tSC��M�N it v��fi pq�.C '`� •s,,;,� »,r`���„yy� ,,,.4, + �iii,.,��S�J A'/3!4 8 x iy ti..�_ <t ..� .ashes .Fs``~Ae�`r�� �, .`r.j ,¢�•'_ !"�.�'��' ,'f � � ``r 'italv„� �• \ •a)l 2 • •''•� 8 ygt X46 � 1N�7riiSYa�AlIb10,+ I k ig &' 'c� g D'� �ukrr! 3� .s �� "J�0.y�$�• 1 :�I f Fo.�Ss 1 w ,�r'gg• 4 a1 ark 't1 t, � �fj`-- lea at the requesontt .A COSTA COUNTY ine Works Department Rf 'EST OF /sneering Services [aivisiot Return to. Pudic works department Ati,G- 81991. Records suction Area: Alamo "" "V Rc,Ad r Las Trampas Road ATO Ct XK .... M County Road No.: NJA CONTRA TA COUNTY RECORDS Project: subdivision MS*arr89,0 j . STEPmEN L.WOR Assessor's No. : 198-220-0201021*,022 FFF RCOUNTY RECORDER : QRANT DEED OF DL'4ELOPMENT R=QBTS To meet condition number 2 of subdivision MS 3-:8:9, Ne,,•Alvino Ridge Associ- ates, a California IAmitted Partnersh; p., towner) isexeby,grant to then county of,, Contra Costa, a political subd3�vLA.4o oa~ #,* State of California, Grantee, and its governmanta•1 successor or 8u02essvrs: t„4e future "development ;. rights," as defined herein below *,#tr a portion of that read property known 4 ;. as "Parcel B"' of subdivision KS 3-$$ situaited in the abunty of Contra Costa, state of California, and more particularly described in Mbit A. �i "Development rights" are; defined to,noan and refer to the right to approve or '.' disapprove of any 'tiroposed.c.*A ttruotion., development or improvement within the areas marked "restricted development area." The "davetopmant rights" are and shall be a form of nalgative, easement which shall run with the said property and shall bind the &=siht owner and any' futuis owner* of•all or any portion of said property. In Vhe event of a dlit ppror►,al of proposed construction by the Grantwe or its successor, said jpropoawtd construction shall not be performed. Grantee or its tucoossor may condltr*-4on its approval of any proposed construction tap" prior or subsequent performance of such conditions as Grantee may deem ap;{ropriate.. Any owner or owners of all or any portion of, said property desiring to develop any improvement requiring the approval of Creates or its successor herein shall submit~ to such entity a written proposal describing the nature, extent, and location of such improvement. Grantee or its successor shall have sixty (60) days from reoeipt of such proposal in' whch to grant its approval or disapproval. Failure .hy Grantee or its successor to respond in said time period shall be equivalent to the approval of such proposal. i Owner: Alamo Ridge Associates, a California Limited Part arsh p. By: Thayer & Holt, Inc., a General t(or) t . Date: n 8. Holt, President Date: 7' $' 91 Je,ftrey R. Thayer, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA } } ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA } on this chi day of , 1�8 , before tae, the under- signed, a Notary Public in and r"Aid Go tit' ansl Stats, personally appeared Jahn S. Holt and Jeffrey R: Thayer, known to me t,: . of satisfactory evidence) to be tate president and ary of Thayer & Holt, Incorporated, a general partner of the partnersbtp tZsat executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such part ` rshi a ut he same. (Notary seal) Notary pubs is in for the DElEtfYD04 County a:f Contra Costa, State of " "�' eosxxwr+ California c:ms3-89.t6 my: commission Expires: 5 Ss P; .N w S i Y 41 WE EXHIBIT rJ lthat pp LS-Subdivision MS 3-89 ay costa, staateOf Caliornf ad es ribedU as8 faal,lows® County of Contra (JO tJ"1 That particu Of Parcal Et � Development 14.r*&#+ its aboxax,rande's�� atad AS "Restricted C)Sook ,A Sion MS 9-89 as recorded on I On filn 'at t2ae Co Of>Parda; Maps, page Unt �tecm-2-derls office. RA:fp C:ms3-89.16 THS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS QF CO2iTR11 Co6TA COtTN"i,"Y, CALIFOPJA 1 Adopted this order on August 6, 1991 by the following vote: y AYES: Supervisors F'anden, Schroder, Mcpeak, TOrInkson and Powers Citi Noise None ABSENTS None ABSTATNt None C7 BBBJECTs Author' z:: g AcCeptan a of Itsstrutlatt. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the following instrument is hereby ACCEPTRat T}1¢m�Lrur�m R�F'ER�N Grant Deed Minor of Alamo Ridge Alamo w Subdivision Associates Development 3-89 Rights I h"by aWity tW IBiM to a*Wofd aorriot adpy at an -*a MM od ws+rwwrd as 1ht ndmdw of nsr Boort or&Jaorftm oh 0*'0M, ffWWft Mmm PML bATCNELbR,GiMirOf.tM Boas of suPrn,tion arv}Corr+qhdrnfntNrasor +� By '4 r: A. origi tors Public Works {ES} cast.�Racorder (via Title Co.) then PW Records, then Clark of the Board s Director of Community Dev. MM.mg END OF t?bC."EifB .t ' "f' � 'oawoscxv ITID "— -- m PARCEL 68wrtwaawiou�wa+Marasio OROU AREA,$A Al 7anM17�11[iw oaiiwi ld 1irRtOGigl4 ilFlM11c1NMT IIBCifti 8"TRAC(EM MEM) t W slw it �ewc i iK W S�iwwiY l�iVrc�!viNe�! • Ri �M » E70(S(Mir3iidAADpW� u�"in w a it .iii 7RENd{ TS� a .xail N' *r NNW WNSLAM 041OtKKf4�IGE M � •a ar .n ` SITE PLAN TNEEOPIp r. � RltlltV:Bi'2 h■sr ���` � 'tsww ;•xii � 1 are awi r.f ` iii„ �fFMa4ailYT S—19 * cross-hatch depicts p' portion of driveway located with scenic easement.